Recommended Posts

Here is a serious discussion of the issues presented in Alex Jones's deposition video and the whole context surrounding it.

I can guarantee that, for those who dislike Alex or think he's a kook, seeing a video of Sargon in this context will make them already "know" Sargon is supporting the Sandy Hook hoax view.

So, from them, we can expect more merriment, more mocking, more snobbery, more covert propaganda, more fried brain. Maybe even some whining...

If they dare watch the thing, though, and if they are honest to themselves about their own expectations going in, I think they will get the shock of their lives.

And Sargon is right. If no way to communicate opens up between Silicon Valley and the alt media, the government--meaning Trump right now--will intercede and set regulations on Internet speech, with rules restricting both sides. That will not be good for anyone except for the people in power at the time. Like all government regulation schemes, it will grow and grow and grow on its own to become deplorably oppressive, and the people in power at each swing of the pendulum will get the loopholes while the people out will get the full force of the law.

ALake Countyman who gained notoriety for his dark fixation on whether the massshooting at Sandy Hook Elementaryactually happened — or was the result of a nefarious conspiracy — has been thrust into the national spotlight as he is named inseveral defamation lawsuits filed by the victims’ families.

According to a deposition and court records released last week from one of the lawsuits, right-wing radio host Alex Jones said he was fed conspiracy theories — including through more than 4,000 emails over several years — by Wolfgang Halbig of Sorrento that the killings in Newtown, Conn., may have been staged by the government as a way of bringing forth more gun-control laws.

Halbig’s obsession about the massacre that left 20 first-graders and six adults dead has been the subject of stories in recent days by the New York Times, Washington Post and other publications. He also is mentioned in an NPR radio show last month about “the upside-down world where conspiracy theorists dwell.”

You’ve probably heard by now that Alex Jones of Infowars plans to defend himself against charges that he defamed the families of folks killed in the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown in 2012 by claiming some form of psychosis.

You heard wrong. You swallowed a meme, becoming the very thing you say you scorn...

. . .

I know this because I represent Alex Jones in three suits pending against him in Connecticut. He faces a related suit defended by separate counsel in Texas.

Alex Jones is not psychotic. He plans to defend himself on the same grounds that protect those who take such joy in ridiculing him: the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

In a video deposition posted online by plaintiffs’ lawyers, he says he was influenced by “something like psychosis” when he opined that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Jones haters seized on this hazy metaphor like starving children diving at crumbs.

. . .

Jones never encouraged people to visit the homes of the surviving family members. He did not himself state that the deaths of children were faked by families seeking financial gain or elevated status as spokesmen for gun control. These assertions about Jones have become urban legend — repeated so often they are taken as true. We are eager to test these assertions in open court and to let a fair-minded jury evaluate the actual evidence — if the cases ever actually get to the point of a jury trial.

The cases should be dismissed. Alex Jones hasn’t defamed anyone; he has engaged in extreme speech, a form of speech we’ve cherished since the days of the penny press.

. . .

Before I chose to represent Alex Jones, I ignored him. His views were too extreme for me. He wasn’t a figure I hated; he just didn’t matter. He was the town crier warning the end is neigh.

Now I defend him from you — you, who want him silenced — because you scare me more than he does.

There is no mob quite so terrifying as a self-righteous mob.

. . .

What motivates hate is fear. Alex Jones and his listeners are afraid of what this country is becoming. You are afraid of Alex Jones and his outlandish conspiracy theories. You’re more alike than you think.

Fight your differences out in the marketplace of ideas. But let’s not fall down the bottomless pit of censorship. Alex Jones is not psychotic, and neither, I suspect, are you, although some days I’m not so sure about either of you.

Here is the current summary excerpt from the Wikipedia page on conspiracy theories:

A conspiracy theory is a belief that a secret conspiracy has actually been decisive in producing a political event or evil outcome which the theorists strongly disapprove of.[3] The conspiracy theory typically identifies the conspirators, provides evidence that supposedly links them together with an evil plan to harm the body politic, and may also point to a supposed cover up by authorities or media who should have stopped the conspiracy. The duty of the theorist is to pick from a myriad of facts and assumptions and reassemble them to form a picture of the conspiracy, as in a jigsaw puzzle. A theorist may publicly identify specific conspirators, and if they deny the allegations that is evidence they have been sworn to secrecy and are probably guilty. Historian Gordon Wood argues that since the Enlightenment of the 18th century, conspiracy theorists always assume that major evil events have been orchestrated and planned, and cannot have happened accidentally or coincidentally or as an unintended consequence of an innocent plan. That is, the jigsaw puzzle really does have a correct solution that ingenious detectives can discover.[4]

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Has anyone noticed that William always--and within minutes--puts any old garbage right after a serious post that flies in the face of his agenda items? He gives the impression that he wants people to skip over serious discussion when it's different than his beliefs...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Has anyone noticed that William always--and within minutes--puts any old garbage right after a serious post that flies in the face of his agenda items? He gives the impression that he wants people to skip over serious discussion when it's different than his beliefs...

Michael

You are surprised that someone who was always here only to thwart the purpose of OL and shit on all of us, is shitting on you?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Why is this thread focused so much on Alex Jones? He's only mildly kooky and conspiratorial compared to his leftist counterparts who have much larger audiences. Muh collusion! Muh what are they hiding in the report!

Inertia, maybe ... and him being in the "fake news" this week, with the leaking of the deposition by his opponents. It would be interesting if you could provide some material for readers, listeners, watchers lurkers and the like.

I kinda liked that he threw Wolfgang Halbig under the bus during his deposition.

Norm Pattis has another opinion piece about Alex Jones and Free Speech at his blog, "The Censors Take Aim At Alex Jones," from March 27:

Quote

[...] And then there is the central question: How many of the allegations now hurled causally at Mr. Jones are about things he actually said? Some of the allegations now have the status of urban legend. Mr. Jones has become a cipher, a symbol for the hatred of the self-righteous.

There was a time when victims of the horrific were honored, pitied, and provided the time and space they needed for respectable grief. Today victims become instant celebrities and props for the political interests of others. Enterprising victims become spokespersons and public figures. We’ve weaponized pathos. It’s small wonder the misused victims feel even more crushing despair when the glare of sympathy is redirected to newer, more fashionable and au courant victims.

We used to say that no person could be a judge in their own case. Now we flock to the aggrieved to let them pass judgment on the rest of us. Is it any wonder our politics is rudderless and empty suits like Chris Murphy can ride a national tragedy to national office?

I’ve taken to watching Infowars as I prepare to defend Mr. Jones and his companies. Here’s what I have learned thus far – people watch the show, and then call in to the show, to be heard. Mr. Jones listens. He is a far more reasonable listener than many of the callers. Where will these callers go if censors succeed in silencing Infowars?

One theory of freedom of speech is that it serves the purpose of finding the truth by testing ideas in the marketplace of ideas. Hence, the antidote to hateful speech is not enforced silence, but more speech. “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence,” The Supreme Court wrote in Whitney v. California, a 1927 decision upholding the right of a Communist to advocate overthrow of the United States government. The same rationale led the American Civil Liberties Union to defend the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, through a community of holocaust survivors.

ACLU has retreated today behind a barrier of cowardice, preferring comfortable conformity and solicitude for the censor to the risks that free speech imposes. We are all worse off as a result.

So keep an eye on the Huffington Post. Rest assured that the tongue-clucking editors will select the most outrageous emails they can find. Look! Their pieces will scream. Look at these outrageous ideas! Did the CIA really stage Sandy Hook!? They will ridicule. All this in support of some version of orthodoxy.

I am far less frightened by the cranky opinions of the village eccentric than I am by the demand of the censor. From social media comes the avalanche of hate, either from the left of the right -- not long ago I was labeled racist after posting a picture I thought funny; not one of those who were so quick to scorn me actually critically engaged in a discussion of what made a photo of beer bottles into a sign of racism. Politicians want more. They want limits on speech. On what can be said and how it can be said. You know where that leads, don’t you? To censorhip.

I can ignore the crank. I don’t have to watch Infowars or MSNBC. But the government official with a warrant is harder to ignore. To the government I must yield my liberty, even my life. The government scares me in a way Alex Jones never will. [...]

Link to post

Share on other sites

Also, there was a kerfuffle with Ted Lieu. He played a recording of Candace mentioning Hitler--out of context, of course (and, frankly, poorly expressed in light of her normal beliefs). In her comments, she said that Lieu believes black people are stupid and will not pursue the full audio. Nadler immediately rebuked her for calling Lieu stupid--which she did not do. I think he was sleeping or something while she was talking. But now he can't do anything about it. This dumbass gaff is in the congressional records

You have to see it to believe it.

Anyway, for that old white male Democrat, no uppity-ass young black woman is going to get sassy with him or his friends and get away with it.

The point is, "muh racists!" is the conspiracy theory the left and fake news media selected to replace the "muh Russians!" hoax.

Yeah, but I've heard that she loves Hitler. They say that she's a black white-nationalist, and was caught on tape admitting that she wants another holocaust. Why would they say stuff like that if it wasn't true? Huh?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yeah, but I've heard that she loves Hitler. They say that she's a black white-nationalist, and was caught on tape admitting that she wants another holocaust. Why would they say stuff like that if it wasn't true? Huh?

I have to tell you there was an exchange yesterday in Washington, Capitol Hill, House Judiciary Committee. C-SPAN has reported that a clip, a confrontation between Candace Owens and Ted Lieu, Democrat, California, has become the most viewed C-SPAN Twitter video from a House hearing ever, in 24 hours, 4.47 million viewers in less than 24 hours.

The video confrontation, Ted Lieu versus Candace Owens, the House Judiciary Committee, is already the most watched C-SPAN Twitter video from a House hearing ever.

. . .

OWENS: It’s pretty apparent that Mr. Lieu believes that black people are stupid and will not pursue the full clip in his entirety.

NADLER: (banging gavel) The witness —

OWENS: He purposely presented an extracted clip —

NADLER: The witness will suspend for a moment. It is not proper to refer disparagingly to a member of the committee. Uh, the witness will not do that again. The witness may not refer to a member of the committee as stupid.

OWENS: I didn’t refer to him as stupid. That’s not what I said. That’s not what I said at all. You didn’t listen to what I said. He assuming that black people will not go pursue the full two-hour clip, and he purposefully extracted — he cut off — and you didn’t hear the question that was asked of me. He’s trying to present as if I was launching a defense of Hitler and Germany, when in fact the question that was asked of me was pertaining to whether or not I believed in nationalism and that nationalism was bad. And what I responded to was that I do not believe that we should be characterizing Hitler as a “nationalist.” He’s a homicidal, psychopathic maniac that killed his own people. He purposely wanted to give you a cutup similar to what they do to Donald Trump to create a differentiate narrative. That was unbelievably dishonest.

RUSH: And, by the way, she didn’t call him stupid. She said, “It’s pretty apparent Mr. Lieu believes black people are stupid,” and here comes Nadler acting stupid. (impression) “You can’t… You can’t call a member of Congress stupid! You — you — you — you — you — you — you stop! You — you — you can’t do that!”

Rush won't say it, but I will. No uppity young-ass black woman is going to get sassy with the distinguished old white man Nadler and get away with it.

Except she did and she made a fool out of him.

From the CSPAN stats, much of America thinks so, too.

There is no doubt in my mind at all that the dems lost a lot of black voters with that event.

Imagine this from their eyes. (From this perspective, Lieu's monkeyshine is almost incidental.) A young black woman stands up to a powerful old white guy right there in Congress, kicks his ass in front of the entire country, gets away with it and is right to boot. Then calls his bud dishonest and gets away with that, too, right after being reprimanded by the old white guy and told not to do that sort of thing.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yeah, but I've heard that she loves Hitler. They say that she's a black white-nationalist, and was caught on tape admitting that she wants another holocaust. Why would they say stuff like that if it wasn't true? Huh?

20 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Her white nationalism is settled consensus.

20 hours ago, tmj said:

Ted (in) Lieu (of fill in the blank) pulled out his cell phone and on the Congressional record called Candace Owens a ****er lover. I saw it !

Let me add to that, but apply McGrath's tweet about Hitler to Candace at Congress instead of Scruton.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You've probably heard of the concept "man cold" or "man flu." I've heard it mentioned in pop culture for a few years now, and have been observing it with interest. And I just experienced it firsthand for the first time. I'm not talking about the cold, but about certain women's reactions to it. The glee. The superiority. I have a cold. I'm still up and about. I've taken the standard over the counter remedies, but I'm coughing and sneezing, my nose is running, and my voice is a bit rough. Despite going about my life as normal, I've been ridiculed by a few women whom I barely even know.

They're very excited about mocking me for having a "man cold," even though I'm not actually displaying the behavior that defines it (staying in bed, doing nothing, moaning -- in other words, being affected by it, where women with colds are said to not be affected, or are strong enough to not allow colds to affect them). It's very psychologically fulfilling to them to verbally kick men when they are experiencing illness or weakness, and to derive a sense of superiority from doing so.

There's no accompanying interest in science or comparing symptoms and ailments. It's just pure psychological thrill of belittling the enemy.

Anyway, it reminded me of this thread, and the excitement that Billy seems to experience in focusing on right-wing conspiracy believers, but not so much left-wing conspiracy believers. Seems to have a lot of similarities to the "man cold" relishers.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You've probably heard of the concept "man cold" or "man flu." I've heard it mentioned in pop culture for a few years now, and have been observing it with interest. And I just experienced it firsthand for the first time. I'm not talking about the cold, but about certain women's reactions to it. The glee. The superiority. I have a cold. I'm still up and about. I've taken the standard over the counter remedies, but I'm coughing and sneezing, my nose is running, and my voice is a bit rough. Despite going about my life as normal, I've been ridiculed by a few women whom I barely even know.

They're very excited about mocking me for having a "man cold," even though I'm not actually displaying the behavior that defines it (staying in bed, doing nothing, moaning -- in other words, being affected by it, where women with colds are said to not be affected, or are strong enough to not allow colds to affect them). It's very psychologically fulfilling to them to verbally kick men when they are experiencing illness or weakness, and to derive a sense of superiority from doing so.

There's no accompanying interest in science or comparing symptoms and ailments. It's just pure psychological thrill of belittling the enemy.

Anyway, it reminded me of this thread, and the excitement that Billy seems to experience in focusing on right-wing conspiracy believers, but not so much left-wing conspiracy believers. Seems to have a lot of similarities to the "man cold" relishers.

J

Named dumb asshole spent about two years faithfully, breathlessly believing in the stupidest conspiracy theory ever. It hurts, and of course, he doesn’t deal with anything gracefully. My favorite was when he pointed his finger at me at said “at least I don’t believe in false ideas that cause harms.” Hilarious! This from the same asshole who pushes the false manmade warming conspiracy theory “the solution” to which is called mass murder. And Muh Russians! In control of American elections! Impeach! Assassinate! Hold no ideas that cause harms!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Trump and Putin are allies in this war, so there is no surprise that Flynn can call them and say “we have to sanction you and look like we’re being tough on you,” ask for restraint and receive restraint. Mueller made the most of it. = zero.

Julian Assange not only knew that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer wasn’t his source for thousands of hacked party emails, he was in active contact with his real sources in Russia’s GRU months after Seth Rich’s death. At the same time he was publicly working to shift blame onto the slain staffer “to obscure the source of the materials he was releasing,” Special Counsel Robert Mueller asserts in his final report on Russia’s role in the 2016 presidential election.

“After the U.S. intelligence community publicly announced its assessment that Russia was behind the hacking operation, Assange continued to deny that the Clinton materials released by WikiLeaks had come from Russian hacking,” the report reads. “According to media reports, Assange told a U.S. congressman that the DNC hack was an ‘inside job,’ and purported to have ‘physical proof’ that Russians did not give materials to Assange.”

See the Axios utility for searching the report for the details, page numbers, etc: